How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument: Supplementary Appendix This is a supplementary appendix to “How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument”. On 5/21/2016, the Global Times, a newspaper under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), published an editorial in Chinese about our paper. The primary purpose of the editorial is to defend CCP policies and practices on the internet, including the activities of CCP­directed and organized online commentators, often colloquially referred to as the “50c party”. Implicit premises of the editorial (which may be jarring to some readers unfamiliar with China) include that the accepted goal of the regime is to remain in power in perpetuity, that ensuring stability of control in this way is good for and agreed to by the people, and that the will of the government is equivalent to the will of the people. As a result, the Chinese regime is not embarrassed by their massive censorship organization or other information control mechanisms, such as the 50c party or the Great Firewall, which may help it accomplish these goals. The editorial talks about how the regime faces the challenging task of ensuring stability of control and shaping public opinion, while trying to avoid annoying people too much with these information control mechanisms that many do not like. The regime is especially concerned with the rise of social media, its frequency of viral messaging, and its ability to spark or fuel collective action; it feels so justified in its decision to respond to these challenges with newer, more intrusive, mechanisms to control public opinion that its appropriateness is assumed without seeing any need to defend or even mention its normative appropriateness. As we explain in Section 7 in our paper, the editorial, which was published only in Chinese, was addressed primarily to their people, rather than the international press (or us). Then, the course of their main goal of defending themselves before their people, the editorial turns out to be the government’s first at least tacit admission to the existence of the 50c party, the veracity of our leaked archive, and confirmation of our empirical results. Understanding what is meant by this editorial requires translation ­­ which we offer below a sentence at a time in English, followed by the original Chinese ­­ as well as detailed contextual explanation [which we offer in square brackets]. The original editorial was published at h ttp://j.mp/ChinasResponse. Global Times , 5/21/2016 Editorial: Harvard Team's Superficial Knowledge of the So­called “50 Cent Party” 社评：哈佛团队对所谓“五毛党”一知半解 A research team from Harvard University has recently published a report on the “Fifty Cent Party” of the Chinese internet; this report claims that they have read more than two thousand sealed emails leaked from a regional government’s internet propaganda department in the city of Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, in addition to verifying information on nearly 43,800 “50 Cent Party” posts. 哈佛大学一个研究团队日前 公布一份针对中国网络“五毛党”的分析报告，该报告宣称查阅了两千多封从江西赣州一个区政府 的网宣部门泄露出来的电子邮件，并且自称确认了将近约43800条“五毛党”发布的消息. This report 1 goes further and estimates that China’s government posts more than 480 million messages on social media each year, 53% of them on government websites. 该报告进一步估算中国政府每年在社交媒体 上发布的信息约为4.8亿多条，其中53%的信息发布在政府网站上. [This is a reasonably accurate summary of some of the empirical results in our paper. The editorial does not take issue with these results or others in our paper; it also does not deny the veracity of the leaked archive we used in some of our analyses.] The Harvard team’s report has been actively promoted by the mainstream American media, [more than 5,000 news outlets worldwide, not only in America, published articles about an early draft of our paper over the few days before this editorial appeared; see Footnote 7 in our paper] seriously befouling China’s name in Western circles. 哈佛团队的这一报告受到美国主流媒体的积极传播，在西方语境下狠狠 “黑”了中国一把. However, it is obvious that the team doing this research has only the most superficial knowledge of China’s national circumstances, muddling the distinctions between official authoritative information, the official news media, and ordinary online statements; they also fail to understand the legitimacy of “public opinion guidance” within the Chinese system. [“Public opinion guidance” is an official term referring to CCP policies and practices designed to influence or control public opinion. In China, this includes what they call below “traditional” guidance, such as their control of the press, as well as newer types of guidance designed for social media and the internet that includes censorship, 50c activity, the Great Firewall, etc. Our paper does not address the “legitimacy” of this activity one way or the other, but many news media reports on our paper attacked it head on.] 然而做此研究的哈佛团队显 然对中国的国情一知半解，他们既混淆了官方权威信息、官方媒体消息以及普通网上发言之间的 区别，也不了解“舆论引导”在中国体制中的正当性. They take the structures and mechanisms of the Western media field as the standard, summing up all the ways in which the Chinese media structures differ as the “Fifty Cent Phenomenon.” [Our paper clearly distinguishes between 50c posts written under direction by the Chinese government, which we study, and others, such as those written by volunteers or on behalf of business groups, which we do not; see Footnote 1 in our paper.] 他们把西方舆论场的结构 和机制当做了标准，中国舆论格局与之不同的地方都被他们归入了“五毛现象”. China’s political system is different from that of the West, so it is only natural that the media ecology would be different as well. 中国的政治体制与西方不同，舆论生态自然也不会一样. The Western media has its own guidance rules, adapted to its political forms and socioeconomic landscape. [E.g., in the West, child pornography is routinely censored, as are critical comments on some corporate web sites. Also, politicians, public officials, and government programs participate in social media, issue press releases, and give speeches. Of course, only rarely do Western governments use forms of public opinion guidance that are kept secret from the public.] 西方舆论有他们自己的引导规则，与那里的政治形态 和经济社会面貌相适应. China’s media system cannot emulate the West, and those who work in China’s media can be proud of this principle. [I.e., China’s public opinion guidance policies should be viewed as legitimate even though they are different from Western governments because Western social media and Western political systems differ from China’s.] 中国的舆论体系不可能向西方看齐，中国舆论工作者 对这个原则完全可以理直气壮. Indeed, Chinese society is generally in agreement regarding the necessity of “public opinion guidance,” [As we show in our paper by analyzing social media posts that discuss this editorial, this is claim is 2 incorrect.] and Chinese people are also aware of the fact that the media in different countries around the world is subject to different forces and different degrees of guidance. 其实对于“引导舆论”的必要性， 中国社会总体是认同的，对于全世界的舆论都受到不同力量和不同程度的引导，中国人对此也是 知道的. What people frequently debate is just how this “public opinion guidance" is to advance with the times, accurately gauging the pulse of the internet and improving the positive results with less wasted efforts. [“Positive results with less wasted efforts” refers to removing, redirecting, or distracting the public from information viewed by the regime as false or harmful.] 人们争论的往往是“舆论引导”应当如何与 时俱进，摸准互联网上的脉搏，多收获正面效果，少做无用功，Especially undesirable is courting mockery through improper guidance. [The government is expressing the difficulty of its political position, where it is trying to guide public opinion as it desires, while trying to make sure the public does not get too upset in the process and spark collective action, which most government guidance is designed to urgently prevent or stop. Not all Chinese people agree with CCP activities in censorship and public opinion guidance, and they know that a way to influence the government is to engage in collective action and on­the­ground protest.] 尤 其应避免不当引导造成“高级黑”. The “Fifty Cent Party” [people directed by the Chinese government to post in social media in specific deceptive ways] and the “American Cent Party” [those who choose to post on social media in ways favorable to the US government] debate has been around a long time. “五毛党”与“美分党”的争论很早 就有. Whether the “Fifty Cent Party” exists, or who they might be, are most certainly not prominent questions in the online Chinese media. “五毛党”到底存不存在，他们是些什么人，这绝非中国网上 舆论场的突出问题. When Chinese people talk jokingly about the “Water Army” [astroturfers operating surreptitiously, i.e., “underwater”, on behalf of firms], they’re usually not referring to the “Fifty Cent Party”; sometimes they’re talking about the “American Cent Party,” sometimes they’re talking about business promotion teams, and sometimes they’re talking about groups that use all kinds of forces within the borders and beyond to “manufacture momentum.” [The government is very concerned with any group other than itself that has the ability to make ideas go viral, from which collective action is sometimes generated.] 中国人说到“水军”时，多数时候也不与“五毛党”划等号，它们有些时候指向了所谓“美 分党”，有些时候指向了商业炒作团队，还有时是指境内外形形色色力量雇佣的声势制造团队. This is a point the Harvard researchers either got wrong or deliberately generalized about. 这一点哈佛的 研究者也搞错了，或者是他们成心以偏概全. [The editorial is correct that many ideas go viral in ways that are not controlled by the government, either openly or secretly through the 50c party. Of course, our paper clearly distinguishes among these sources; see Footnote 1 in our paper.] The Chinese internet media’s largest problem is not